Kenyan government services turning into pay-to-access schemes

The recent revelations about the e-Citizen platform and its financial irregularities raise concerns about the management and future of digital government services in Kenya. At least KES 144 million ($1.1 million) collected through the platform is unaccounted for, adding to its history of mismanagement. These issues arise amid discussions on privatising key government functions. The state still relies on Webmasters Kenya, a private firm, to manage the platform years after winning a court case over its ownership. Webmasters Kenya’s proposal to introduce premium charges for expedited services fuels speculation that the government is considering a subscription-based model that could limit access to public services.

Yet some think that this is a good idea. The assumption that private corporations provide government services more efficiently and at a lower cost is flawed. This theory rests on the belief that bureaucratic inefficiencies make government service provision expensive, while private firms, with better management and cost-saving techniques, can operate more effectively while making a profit. However, research shows otherwise. When essential services are privatised, governments often fail to anticipate requirements, which could lead to costly contract modifications and unforeseen expenses. Businesses prioritise profit over public interest.

The e-Citizen case illustrates these risks. While digital platforms improve efficiency, they also introduce new dangers when managed by private entities focused on financial gain. Despite the government’s legal victory, Webmasters Kenya’s continued control over the platform raises concerns about contractual loopholes and the state’s ability to maintain public control over critical digital infrastructure. The missing KES 144 million highlights the lack of transparency in managing public funds. These irregularities mirror past corruption cases linked to e-Citizen, including the KES 5.6 billion ($44 million) probe that implicated treasury officials and private sector executives. Such incidents show the dangers of allowing private firms to control essential government services without strict oversight.

Privatising public services shifts incentives. Unlike government agencies, which respond to political will and public demand, private firms operate for profit. This often leads to cost-cutting that reduces service quality, increases fees, and excludes lower-income users. For services that function as natural monopolies, such as banking, healthcare, and transportation, privatisation has historically increased costs and reduced access rather than improved efficiency. A similar pattern is emerging with e-Citizen, where premium charges for expedited services risk creating a two-tiered system—those who can afford to pay for faster service while others endure delays.

Premium charges raise fundamental questions about government service delivery. If implemented, they could set a precedent for broader pay-to-access services and contradict the principle that essential government functions should be accessible to all. This follows a global trend of public service monetisation, often justified in the name of efficiency. In the U.S., for instance, healthcare privatisation has led to exorbitant costs, with corporate profiteering taking priority over service quality. Kenya’s approach to e-Citizen seems headed in a similar direction, where private firms dictate access and pricing.

One of the biggest risks of privatising government services is the lack of long-term commitment to public welfare. While most Kenyans may disagree, government employees often go beyond their formal job descriptions to keep services running despite inefficiencies. Private contractors, however, operate strictly within contract terms, demanding extra compensation for additional work. This becomes problematic for essential services that require flexibility. A subscription model for e-Citizen would worsen this, as private entities would prioritise revenue over equitable service access.

Kenya’s slow and inefficient public services, such as those provided by the National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA), have fuelled arguments for privatisation. A visit to NTSA offices can take an entire day, even with an appointment. However, the solution is not necessarily privatisation but internal reforms addressing bureaucratic bottlenecks. Many inefficiencies stem from poor management, outdated processes, and corruption, not an inherent inability of the government to provide quality services. Handing services to private firms without addressing these issues simply shifts the problem rather than solving it.

The government’s budgeting approach also contributes to inefficiencies. The current model incentivises departments to exhaust their budgets to avoid future reductions. This simply encourages wastage. While this inefficiency is often cited as a reason for privatisation, shifting to a profit-driven model does not necessarily solve the problem. Instead, it introduces new challenges, such as inflated service costs and exclusionary practices that disadvantage lower-income citizens.

The proposal for premium charges on e-Citizen services reflects a broader trend of creeping privatisation, where essential government functions are subjected to market forces. If left unchecked, this could lead to a scenario where access to basic services depends on financial ability rather than citizenship rights.

Kenn Abuya

Senior Reporter, TechCabal

Thank you for reading this far. Feel free to email kenn[at]bigcabal.com, with your thoughts about this edition of NextWave. Or just click reply to share your thoughts and feedback.